Uh, how is exporting raw materials (many of which will end up in electronics back on our shores) bad for America?
Who said it was bad for America?
ure, it would be better if those materials were used in local manufacturing facilities, but opening a source of those raw materials will make it more financially viable to do so.
Agreed. But lets not put the celebrations ahead of the victory. The company press released is something of a "Mission Accomplished" moment, and that is what is being poked fun at.
Luckily, all persons, businesses, and other entities that receive any unsolicited commercial email from any email address containing any of my domains also voluntarily enter a contract with me as described herein:
0 : You retroactively agree to exempt said communication from any retroactive Terms and Conditions you would normally seek to apply.
Well, yes, but aren't all caricatures parodies? Isn't that an inherent quality... you can't render someone's likeness by exaggerating their most recognizable features without creating a parody.
I admit I never looked at things this way. I always sneered at all those "so-called" facebook friends.
Despite the GPs post that facebook "friends" have their apropriate niche and how he's neatly integrated facebook into his life in a healthy and reasonable way. And despite the handful of inevitable me-too posts, the reality is that most people haven't looked at it that way and approached it that way... Including most facebook users.
In other words, if you don't win - you didn't accomplish anything, it's all about the tangible bottom line.
Wow. No. Not even close. Precisely the opposite.
If I don't win, then the rewards are the intangible benefits. (Satisfaction of doing it, enjoyment of doing, having learned from doing it, etc.)
Odds are high that I won't win. After all, by definition, nearly all contestants lose. So the individual potential contestants rationally should not be expecting to win.
If they don't expect to win, then they for them to do it, it is for precisely those intangibles mentioned above. (And I think those are great reasons to do something, by the way.)
HOWEVER, if they are sufficiently motivated to do something for the intangibles, then the prize isn't necessary. They would do it for the intangibles... and probably already are.
Either you are doing it because you want to for the intangibles, or you shouldn't do it at all. Doing something when you don't value the intangibles, and only for the prize is almost irrational as you are then most likely doing it for nothing at all.
That's because you hold the mistaken belief that if you're not the winner, you didn't accomplish anything.
Not at all. But if I don't win, then it had better have been worth it to me doing it anyway. And if it was worth me doing it anyway, then I'd have done it anyway. And if I'd have done it anyway, there doesn't need to be a prize to motivate me to do what I'd have done anyway.
Maybe they decided to participate because it's enjoyable to them. The prize is just a bonus that happens to be there. If there were no prize they would most probably still do it.
Of course. But then its a waste of money. There is no point in funding a prize to motivate people to do what they were going to do anyway. What exactly is the return on the prize? The same people who would have done it are still working on the problem.
"Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of accelerating problem-solving by tapping America's top talent and best expertise."... and are cheap too because instead of paying people to solve it, you let a multitude of people do it in their free time, and then you pay the winner a set amount regardless of how long it took or what it actually cost. Everyone else gets nothing, regardless of how much time they spend, or what their expenses were.
I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.
We're already seeing prize models for logo and website design...
Primarily so we can give it to who we want in the amounts we want, and we don't require Visa/Mastercard/Government/Paypal approving of the entity you are transacting with.
Essentially it's actually an important piece of protecting our freedom.
That assumes the video doesn't mysteriously go missing or the camera doesn't mysteriously malfunction during crucial moments. Both have happened before.
Right, but the aspect where police can record themselves is complemented by the public being able to record them as well. We need -both-.
That way if the "public" produces video that casts the police in a bad light, the police can contribute their video that puts it into context. There is nothing the public will be able to record that that will harm an innocent officer because he'll have his own "alibi tape". And the argument against the public recording them goes out the window.
Now your comment that police may withhold video that is 'damaging' to their position is bang on, but then we'll have the public recording to work from. And if the police camera that exonerates them "failed at that crucial moment"... the courts can sort it out, with an annotation that perhaps they should invest in cameras that "work better" for their own protection.
What happened was no different. Google made it easy for anyone to see her laundry.
You are over simplifying. The end result is not the *only* thing one needs to consider.
If Google was singling you out, yeah. But if they were just giving anyone who wanted one a free ride to Japan and driving them around to see the sights, you wouldn't be able to claim that they were harassing you when their tourists all happened to see your underwear as they drove past.
Now your modified analogy is a lot more reasonable, but its still not the same thing.
You are still equating the happenstance of possibly seeing someone's underwear while driving by, with taking a photograph and publishing it on the internet with a street address.
Being "seen" is not the same thing as being "photographed and having that photograph published along with your street address, for commercial purposes".
They aren't even in the same ballpark.
If you are at the mall shopping, and I see you that's fine.
If I start taking pictures of you, we start bumping into all sorts of legal scenarios depending on what I want to do with that photo, and what that photo exactly contains.
This particular case I find interesting, we've more or less established that if the photo contains a person that person has all kinds of rights that need to be respected. And if I recall correctly google is actually obligated to blur faces before publishing its images now.
We've also established that a photo of a home taken from a public street is legal to use for commercial purposes.
And if the photo contains identifiable people they have to be face-blurred.
I'm not sure exactly what happens if they caught you at home nude through the window. Personally I think google really has the obligation to blur or shop the entire person out, before publishing. (a simple face blur is not enough, and the fact that its published in context with your street address, you aren't really anonymous).
This particular case goes beyond even that though, and raises the question -- does google have the right to take photos of the *contents* of your home, as seen from a public vantage point. Personally, I think they really shouldn't. They should probably be obligated to blur anything they see through a window prior to publishing.
The typical/. counter to that would be "if you don't want it seen, keep your blinds closed". And I feel that argument fails on two counts:
a) What can be normally be seen from the street is often quite different than what can be seen from a camera mounted on the top of a cube van in the middle of the street. That's actually a fairly unusual vantage point.
b) More importantly. Being seen is different from being photographed. Period. When I eat at a restaurant I have no objection to others seeing me there. I would however object if the restaurant staff took my picture and put it on the wall without my permission, or sold it to a stock photograph site, or used it in an ad campaign.
Likewise, I have no issue with the fact that my neighbors and people driving down my private dead end street might occasionally get a glimpse into my home. If my neighbor photographed his kid learning to ride her bike and the photo captures a glimpse into my window inadvertangly, that's fine too. But if he decides to sell or publish that photo then yeah, perhaps he ought to blur the inside of my house at that point, or ask for permission not to. I absolutely think google should be required to blur the photographs it takes that capture the inside of my home which it then publishes along with a street address without my permission.
Sorry this is long, I just really dislike the whole "if you can see it, then recording it is fine line of argument". It's not the same thing and it shouldn't be the same thing.
So? What if Google was giving anyone a free plane ticket to visit her and drive past to see her underwear?
Yes, lets make up imaginary absurd scenarios, and then make arguments about those instead of what actually happened...
What would a sensible response have been for her?
In the event they were actually doing that I'd probably sue google for some type of harrassment. And I'd probably win.
Which Google does, with embarrassing stuff like this, if someone tells them about it and asks them to take it down.
That's a start. However, the lawsuit is allegedly damages already done by google. I'm not saying she will win, or even that she should win in this case, but I understand why she's upset.
That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
Precisely. So he very likely will be advised by his lawyers to say nothing.
If you don't say anything, there is nothing gained from repeated questioning, and no inconsistences in the tellings and re-tellings. Even if you are completely innocent you can get confused, mis-speak, and get tripped up and it doesn't do your case any good.
Rule number one when dealing with police: keep your mouth shut.
but that is very different to having a "Eureka momement" in your head.
But that eureka moment wasn't the result of a "thought experiment" in my head. It arose from an investigation into a situation that occurred while using a computer.
That investigation is "research". Worse, it is research into how how a computer makes copies during normal operation... this research is specifically forbidden.
What you are not allowed to do is drag you computer (or any other material) into the jury room and give the other 11 jurors a demonstration (or as in TFA a definition).
No. The problem was that she performed "research" externally. Period.
The fact that she dragged it into the jury room just made it evident to everyone else that she had done so. But if she had looked it up at home, and simply acted on it, instead of "sharing the definition" with the other jurors... no one would be the wiser... but it sounds like it would be a mistrial if somehow word got out that she had looked up a word at home.
You plug in an external drive. It asks if you want to use it as the Time Machine drive. You click 'YES'.
Right. Now what happens if you don't plug in an external drive? Its not like your Mac came with one, and most people who bought a computer didn't buy an external drive with it. OSX says nothing.
What if you plugged in the external drive to read/write files from/to it, which is what most people who aren't thinking specifically about backups are doing. The time-machine message is actually an annoying pop-up you have to cancel. Even if I should set up a backup, and even if I -want- to set up a backup... I don't want to use *this disk right now*, so I cancel it...and then its out of sight out of mind again.
Windows 7 flags it as an ongoing issue and says "Setup a backup. Your files are not being backed up. [button - Set up backup]"
I'll give OSX full props for time machine its great software. But Windows 7 gets the win for actually telling people they actually should be backing up. Windows 7 defines "no backups" as a *problem* (unless you specifically tell it not to.) This is a good thing.
Why are manufacturing jobs a good thing? I never understood this. There is value in overpaying human beings do work that can be automated?
Manufacturing jobs includes building the factory, running it, maintaining the robots, etc.
Note that its not the "automatation of work" that makes china desirable to business. Its the fact that human assembly lines are cheaper than robots if you can pay them slave wages, no benefits, and maintain no regard for safety or pollution... espeically if its near a port so you can inexpensively float the finished product to market.
Slashdot Mirror
Uh, how is exporting raw materials (many of which will end up in electronics back on our shores) bad for America?
Who said it was bad for America?
ure, it would be better if those materials were used in local manufacturing facilities, but opening a source of those raw materials will make it more financially viable to do so.
Agreed. But lets not put the celebrations ahead of the victory. The company press released is something of a "Mission Accomplished" moment, and that is what is being poked fun at.
In Steve Jobs case though, what is Steve Jobs most recognizable feature?
Black turtleneck/blue jeans capped by an inflated head... I'd be willing to argue its a parody. :p
Luckily, all persons, businesses, and other entities that receive any unsolicited commercial email from any email address containing any of my domains also voluntarily enter a contract with me as described herein:
0 : You retroactively agree to exempt said communication from any retroactive Terms and Conditions you would normally seek to apply.
Aren't all caricature action figures big-headed?
Well, yes, but aren't all caricatures parodies? Isn't that an inherent quality... you can't render someone's likeness by exaggerating their most recognizable features without creating a parody.
I admit I never looked at things this way. I always sneered at all those "so-called" facebook friends.
Despite the GPs post that facebook "friends" have their apropriate niche and how he's neatly integrated facebook into his life in a healthy and reasonable way. And despite the handful of inevitable me-too posts, the reality is that most people haven't looked at it that way and approached it that way... Including most facebook users.
Like a key that can be stolen?
Or a combination that be shoulder surfed?
Like the ones ground crews are already using?
Not really. They already act in movies professionally. If the oscars were discontinued would anyone really care? What would change?
The only thing I have with bank of america is credit card debt. I hope that disappears in the whole wikileakageddon bank of americassplosion.
don't bet on it, your debt might be one of their few assets when this is over. :p
In other words, if you don't win - you didn't accomplish anything, it's all about the tangible bottom line.
Wow. No. Not even close. Precisely the opposite.
If I don't win, then the rewards are the intangible benefits. (Satisfaction of doing it, enjoyment of doing, having learned from doing it, etc.)
Odds are high that I won't win. After all, by definition, nearly all contestants lose. So the individual potential contestants rationally should not be expecting to win.
If they don't expect to win, then they for them to do it, it is for precisely those intangibles mentioned above. (And I think those are great reasons to do something, by the way.)
HOWEVER, if they are sufficiently motivated to do something for the intangibles, then the prize isn't necessary. They would do it for the intangibles... and probably already are.
Either you are doing it because you want to for the intangibles, or you shouldn't do it at all. Doing something when you don't value the intangibles, and only for the prize is almost irrational as you are then most likely doing it for nothing at all.
That's because you hold the mistaken belief that if you're not the winner, you didn't accomplish anything.
Not at all. But if I don't win, then it had better have been worth it to me doing it anyway. And if it was worth me doing it anyway, then I'd have done it anyway. And if I'd have done it anyway, there doesn't need to be a prize to motivate me to do what I'd have done anyway.
Maybe they decided to participate because it's enjoyable to them. The prize is just a bonus that happens to be there. If there were no prize they would most probably still do it.
Of course. But then its a waste of money. There is no point in funding a prize to motivate people to do what they were going to do anyway. What exactly is the return on the prize? The same people who would have done it are still working on the problem.
Some people actually *enjoy* their profession, and do not need to be paid for *everything* they do (e.g. open source?).
So your argument is that people will compete for a cash prize because they aren't motivated by money?
"Prizes and challenges have an excellent track record of accelerating problem-solving by tapping America's top talent and best expertise." ... and are cheap too because instead of paying people to solve it, you let a multitude of people do it in their free time, and then you pay the winner a set amount regardless of how long it took or what it actually cost. Everyone else gets nothing, regardless of how much time they spend, or what their expenses were.
I'm surprised scientists get sucked into this stuff, its about as sensible as playing the lottery, and self-destructive to the viability of one's own profession.
We're already seeing prize models for logo and website design...
Um, you're using currency produced by the government.
What do I care who produces it? I only care if its controllable / traceable.
If you want complete control, try carrying around gold ducats.
What would be the point? What can you buy with them? For it to be much use it needs to be untraced/uncontrolled and legal tender.
Why do we still carry money anyway?
Primarily so we can give it to who we want in the amounts we want, and we don't require Visa/Mastercard/Government/Paypal approving of the entity you are transacting with.
Essentially it's actually an important piece of protecting our freedom.
That assumes the video doesn't mysteriously go missing or the camera doesn't mysteriously malfunction during crucial moments. Both have happened before.
Right, but the aspect where police can record themselves is complemented by the public being able to record them as well. We need -both-.
That way if the "public" produces video that casts the police in a bad light, the police can contribute their video that puts it into context. There is nothing the public will be able to record that that will harm an innocent officer because he'll have his own "alibi tape". And the argument against the public recording them goes out the window.
Now your comment that police may withhold video that is 'damaging' to their position is bang on, but then we'll have the public recording to work from. And if the police camera that exonerates them "failed at that crucial moment"... the courts can sort it out, with an annotation that perhaps they should invest in cameras that "work better" for their own protection.
What happened was no different. Google made it easy for anyone to see her laundry.
You are over simplifying. The end result is not the *only* thing one needs to consider.
If Google was singling you out, yeah. But if they were just giving anyone who wanted one a free ride to Japan and driving them around to see the sights, you wouldn't be able to claim that they were harassing you when their tourists all happened to see your underwear as they drove past.
Now your modified analogy is a lot more reasonable, but its still not the same thing.
You are still equating the happenstance of possibly seeing someone's underwear while driving by, with taking a photograph and publishing it on the internet with a street address.
Being "seen" is not the same thing as being "photographed and having that photograph published along with your street address, for commercial purposes".
They aren't even in the same ballpark.
If you are at the mall shopping, and I see you that's fine.
If I start taking pictures of you, we start bumping into all sorts of legal scenarios depending on what I want to do with that photo, and what that photo exactly contains.
This particular case I find interesting, we've more or less established that if the photo contains a person that person has all kinds of rights that need to be respected. And if I recall correctly google is actually obligated to blur faces before publishing its images now.
We've also established that a photo of a home taken from a public street is legal to use for commercial purposes.
And if the photo contains identifiable people they have to be face-blurred.
I'm not sure exactly what happens if they caught you at home nude through the window. Personally I think google really has the obligation to blur or shop the entire person out, before publishing. (a simple face blur is not enough, and the fact that its published in context with your street address, you aren't really anonymous).
This particular case goes beyond even that though, and raises the question -- does google have the right to take photos of the *contents* of your home, as seen from a public vantage point. Personally, I think they really shouldn't. They should probably be obligated to blur anything they see through a window prior to publishing.
The typical /. counter to that would be "if you don't want it seen, keep your blinds closed". And I feel that argument fails on two counts:
a) What can be normally be seen from the street is often quite different than what can be seen from a camera mounted on the top of a cube van in the middle of the street. That's actually a fairly unusual vantage point.
b) More importantly. Being seen is different from being photographed. Period. When I eat at a restaurant I have no objection to others seeing me there. I would however object if the restaurant staff took my picture and put it on the wall without my permission, or sold it to a stock photograph site, or used it in an ad campaign.
Likewise, I have no issue with the fact that my neighbors and people driving down my private dead end street might occasionally get a glimpse into my home. If my neighbor photographed his kid learning to ride her bike and the photo captures a glimpse into my window inadvertangly, that's fine too. But if he decides to sell or publish that photo then yeah, perhaps he ought to blur the inside of my house at that point, or ask for permission not to. I absolutely think google should be required to blur the photographs it takes that capture the inside of my home which it then publishes along with a street address without my permission.
Sorry this is long, I just really dislike the whole "if you can see it, then recording it is fine line of argument". It's not the same thing and it shouldn't be the same thing.
So? What if Google was giving anyone a free plane ticket to visit her and drive past to see her underwear?
Yes, lets make up imaginary absurd scenarios, and then make arguments about those instead of what actually happened...
What would a sensible response have been for her?
In the event they were actually doing that I'd probably sue google for some type of harrassment. And I'd probably win.
Which Google does, with embarrassing stuff like this, if someone tells them about it and asks them to take it down.
That's a start. However, the lawsuit is allegedly damages already done by google. I'm not saying she will win, or even that she should win in this case, but I understand why she's upset.
That is how investigations work and how one can find lies and distortions, by repeated questioning and looking for inconsistency in the tellings and re-tellings.
Precisely. So he very likely will be advised by his lawyers to say nothing.
If you don't say anything, there is nothing gained from repeated questioning, and no inconsistences in the tellings and re-tellings. Even if you are completely innocent you can get confused, mis-speak, and get tripped up and it doesn't do your case any good.
Rule number one when dealing with police: keep your mouth shut.
but that is very different to having a "Eureka momement" in your head.
But that eureka moment wasn't the result of a "thought experiment" in my head. It arose from an investigation into a situation that occurred while using a computer.
That investigation is "research". Worse, it is research into how how a computer makes copies during normal operation... this research is specifically forbidden.
Make sure you read the hover text. :)
What you are not allowed to do is drag you computer (or any other material) into the jury room and give the other 11 jurors a demonstration (or as in TFA a definition).
No. The problem was that she performed "research" externally. Period.
The fact that she dragged it into the jury room just made it evident to everyone else that she had done so. But if she had looked it up at home, and simply acted on it, instead of "sharing the definition" with the other jurors... no one would be the wiser... but it sounds like it would be a mistrial if somehow word got out that she had looked up a word at home.
You plug in an external drive. It asks if you want to use it as the Time Machine drive. You click 'YES'.
Right. Now what happens if you don't plug in an external drive? Its not like your Mac came with one, and most people who bought a computer didn't buy an external drive with it. OSX says nothing.
What if you plugged in the external drive to read/write files from/to it, which is what most people who aren't thinking specifically about backups are doing. The time-machine message is actually an annoying pop-up you have to cancel. Even if I should set up a backup, and even if I -want- to set up a backup... I don't want to use *this disk right now*, so I cancel it...and then its out of sight out of mind again.
Windows 7 flags it as an ongoing issue and says "Setup a backup. Your files are not being backed up. [button - Set up backup]"
I'll give OSX full props for time machine its great software. But Windows 7 gets the win for actually telling people they actually should be backing up. Windows 7 defines "no backups" as a *problem* (unless you specifically tell it not to.) This is a good thing.
Why are manufacturing jobs a good thing? I never understood this. There is value in overpaying human beings do work that can be automated?
Manufacturing jobs includes building the factory, running it, maintaining the robots, etc.
Note that its not the "automatation of work" that makes china desirable to business. Its the fact that human assembly lines are cheaper than robots if you can pay them slave wages, no benefits, and maintain no regard for safety or pollution... espeically if its near a port so you can inexpensively float the finished product to market.
Yes there are issues.
There are issues with the CURRENT model too, in that it is fundamentally broken.